John Harris's history of the Clinton Administration, The Survivor, has met
with almost universal praise from reviewers, much of it deserved. Harris, who
spent six years covering the Clinton White House for the Washington Post, has
done an admirably thorough and empathetic job of re-creating the zeitgeist of
the Administration. Unlike Bob Woodward, Harris does not seek to sensationalize
his material by ripping it out of context and trumpeting it as the newest Watergate-style
outrage. Instead, he patiently weighs motive, perspective and memory to provide
a richly nuanced and knowing version of events.

Still--and you knew this was coming--there's a massive hole in this book where
the role of Harris and his colleagues should be. Over and over, Harris points
to some political explosion over a ridiculously minor issue and treats it as
if it's the result of a meteorological disturbance rather than an outgrowth
of the self-conscious irresponsibility of the media. Early in the book, for
instance, we hear that Clinton "was judged for his haircut," which
cost $200 and forced the closure of two runways at LAX, where it took place.
Harris notes that "initial reports that air traffic was kept circling for
hours turned out some weeks later to be wrong. By then, Clinton had long since
apologized.... Too late--this trivial episode had already entered the anti-Clinton
mythology."

Note the use of the passive voice: Clinton "was judged"; note also
that the episode "entered the anti-Clinton mythology" as if on its
own wings. No matter that the story turned out to be based on false information.
No planes were delayed, and yet the trumped-up media hysteria forced a presidential
apology. And note that the truth, finally, did not matter. No less ridiculous,
Harris later describes another nutty phony crisis because Clinton, after an
hour of schmoozing reporters in the back of Air Force One, averred that he hoped
"to get people to get out of their funk." You see, Harris explains,
"'Funk' sounded a bit as if Clinton thought the country was facing 'malaise.'
'Malaise' was the word people associated with the failed presidency of Jimmy
Carter." Etc., etc. Reels the mind...

More significant, Harris ignores the de facto alliance forged by the far right's
sliming machine, talk-radio, the cable news networks and an irresponsible mainstream
media, which has been detailed in books by yours truly, Sidney Blumenthal, David
Brock, Joe Conason and Gene Lyons, Jeffrey Toobin, Marvin Kalb and by Clinton
himself. One does not have to embrace the authors' politics to be impressed
by the amassed evidence.

Harris does believe that Hillary Clinton's allusion to a "vast right-wing
conspiracy" was conveyed by the media to give her argument a "more
paranoid tone than the interview in full context," and he goes on to note
that "her general points were entirely defensible, including that the Lewinsky
allegations were promoted by those 'using the criminal justice system to try
to achieve political ends in this country.'"

And yet, in his rendering of the Whitewater/Lewinsky investigation, Harris
never once delves into the cozy (and potentially illegal) relationship between
Ken Starr's leaky prosecutorial staff and the credulous reporters who ran its
political interference; this despite the fact that the judicial investigation
of these nefarious tactics was itself a large part of the story.

Harris also glosses over Starr's connection to the uppermost reaches of his
own, extremely powerful, newspaper. Harris does discuss the President's (profane)
reaction to reading Sally Quinn's infamous apologia for Establishment Clinton-haters,
but Harris does not quote Quinn explaining, "Starr is a Washington insider,
too. He has lived and worked here for years. He had a reputation as a fair and
honest judge. He has many friends in both parties. Their wives are friendly
with one another and their children go to the same schools." In her 3,579-word
article, Quinn did not find the space to mention Judge Starr's much-appreciated
dismissal of a $2 million libel judgment against the Post. Neither does Harris.

Harris also does Clinton, and history, a significant disservice on terrorism.
He seems to want to hold Clinton accountable for the media's--and Congress's--unwillingness
to heed the President's frequent warnings on Osama bin Laden and the terrorist
threat. As former Clinton speechwriter Ted Widmer has pointed out, "The
press corps was oblivious, and the Republican Congress simply opposed anything
Mr. Clinton proposed. Then, after George W. Bush became President, when the
G.O.P. had a chance to do something about terrorism, they slashed counterterrorism
funding, ignored intelligence concerning Al Qaeda and chased after chimeras
like a national missile-defense system."

Recall that the media's hero during this part of the terrorism story was FBI
Director Louis Freeh, the object of an embarrassingly adoring New Yorker profile
by Elsa Walsh--Mrs. Bob Woodward--for his willingness to treat the Clinton crew
as near criminals. We now know that Freeh's incompetence helped pave the way
for 9/11. The bureau's failure to share the most basic information with the
White House and the rest of the security apparatus allowed Al Qaeda to plan
and execute its murderous plot undisturbed. According to the just-released Justice
Department Inspector General's report, the bureau missed at least five opportunities
before 9/11 and this proved "a significant failure that hindered the FBI's
chances of being able to detect and prevent the September 11 attacks."

Because Harris largely ignores his colleagues' anti-Clinton animus, he is at
a loss to explain the phenomenon to which he continually alludes: the consistent
"dichotomy" between the reaction of the media elite and that of most
of America to l'affaire Lewinsky. As insider Washington defines its values,
Clinton's failed attempt to mislead the nation about whether he had "sexual
relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" is a far worse crime than George
Bush & Co.'s successful deception to lead the nation into a ruinous war.
It is a minority viewpoint in most of the world, including the United States;
but one that is treated with contempt and condescension in our SCLM (so-called
liberal media).

Reprinted with permission from the Nation. For subscription information call 1-800-333-8536. Portions of each week's Nation magazine can be accessed at http://www.thenation.com.